From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 23:35:31 -0700 Why not support your "subjective" impression by "objective" data? It was not my intention to "catch" you - my intent was to obtain a solid fact that I can quote further on. A distribution of usefulness of library books... The difficulty is of course that the library books are pre-selected and not just randomly chosen. But - even with this limitation - any statistical result of this kind would be very important. Ari Belenkiy On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:54 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:18:07 +0000 > > No, I can’t. We don’t track circulation by type of publisher. My > assessment of the demand pattern for scholarly monographs is based on > subjective impressions of what’s happening in my library and on what I’m > hearing from my colleagues in other libraries, as well as the > well-documented general decline in book circulation among large research > libraries (whose circulating holdings consist significantly of scholarly > monographs). > > Anyone who disagrees with my subjective assessement of that pattern should > feel absolutely free to ignore and dismiss it. > > Rick > > --- > Rick Anderson > Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections > Marriott Library, University of Utah > [log in to unmask] > > > > On 6/3/14, 10:59 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > >From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> > >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 22:03:22 -0700 > > > >Dear Rick, > > > >Could you please provide a relevant statistics? > > > >Eg, out of 1000 books (or whatever is in your collection) for last 5 > >years 100 books were not check out at all, 200 were checked once, etc. > > > >This distribution would be an invaluable resource for a good > >statistical argument. > > > >Ari Belenkiy > >SFU > >Canada